Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RAF Strategic Bomber

u8dmtm

Swinger
Just wondering why there appears to be no requirement for the RAF to operate a large bomber with global reach, a modern Vulcan but with stealth, able to perform ‘Black Buck’ type operations and those the US performs with B2 (and B21 in the future).

Clearly there would be a high cost to doing so and the nuclear deterrent is deliver via SSBNs but surely having the ability to strike anywhere in the world rapidly is a notable gap in our capability that would perhaps have diplomatic value and offer a strong conventional deterrent as well as being much easier to quickly deploy than a Tomahawk armed SSN or an aircraft carrier full of F35s.
 
We have the American’s for that. They love bombing shít.
 
££££££s. End of.

Agreed.
Those stealthy strategic bombers cost Megabucks and during peacetime will eat vast amounts of moolah just to keep them in good nick and the crews operating at required competency levels.
The specialist log requirements are pretty big and the economies of scale non existent.
 

anglo

LE
We have the American’s for that. They love bombing shít.
Where did you get that crazy idea from:rolleyes:

2f4127d2cb9481e5a7d391a30a70fb2c.jpg
 
Ahem..
Astute class submarine...

The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry a mix of Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each.[22] The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres, to a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometres).

I accept that many places on the planet are located more than 1000 miles from a coastline.
 
Just wondering why there appears to be no requirement for the RAF to operate a large bomber with global reach, a modern Vulcan but with stealth, able to perform ‘Black Buck’ type operations and those the US performs with B2 (and B21 in the future).

Clearly there would be a high cost to doing so and the nuclear deterrent is deliver via SSBNs but surely having the ability to strike anywhere in the world rapidly is a notable gap in our capability that would perhaps have diplomatic value and offer a strong conventional deterrent as well as being much easier to quickly deploy than a Tomahawk armed SSN or an aircraft carrier full of F35s.
why?just park one of our two servicable multi billion pound aircraft carriers with its fit for purpose multi million pound F35s on near by, oh hang on a minute,
 

u8dmtm

Swinger
Ahem..
Astute class submarine...

The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry a mix of Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each.[22] The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres, to a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometres).

I accept that many places on the planet are located more than 1000 miles from a coastline.
Yeah the one issue being speed - at 35mph and with only an intended seven in the fleet and probably less than half that available at any one time it could take a while to have one in the right place
 

Mattb

LE
Yeah the one issue being speed - at 35mph and with only an intended seven in the fleet and probably less than half that available at any one time it could take a while to have one in the right place
Typhoon + Storm Shadow + Voyager
 

Yokel

LE
Yeah the one issue being speed - at 35mph and with only an intended seven in the fleet and probably less than half that available at any one time it could take a while to have one in the right place

What makes you think less than half will be available at any one time? One of the issues with previous classes of SSN (and SSBN) was the need to take them out of service to to refuel the reactor. This process took the boat out of service for something like two years.

New reactors have long lasting cores to avoid the need for a refuel.
 
Just wondering why there appears to be no requirement for the RAF to operate a large bomber with global reach, a modern Vulcan but with stealth, able to perform ‘Black Buck’ type operations and those the US performs with B2 (and B21 in the future).

Clearly there would be a high cost to doing so and the nuclear deterrent is deliver via SSBNs but surely having the ability to strike anywhere in the world rapidly is a notable gap in our capability that would perhaps have diplomatic value and offer a strong conventional deterrent as well as being much easier to quickly deploy than a Tomahawk armed SSN or an aircraft carrier full of F35s.
Because in the age of long range missiles, bomber aircraft are obsolete. Why waste mega squillions on expensive planes and pilots that will get shot down, when for the same money, you can have tons of missiles that can achieve the same effect, but for much cheaper.

Doesn't matter if they are ship, sub or land launched, it all works.

Find the enemy - doesn't need to be a plane.
Get the missile in range - doesn't need to be a plane.

Why do we still have an air force? Because a proportion of those who make the decisions on where the money goes used to be pilots. Simple as that.
 

Sabretooth

War Hero
Just wondering why there appears to be no requirement for the RAF to operate a large bomber with global reach, a modern Vulcan but with stealth, able to perform ‘Black Buck’ type operations and those the US performs with B2 (and B21 in the future).

Clearly there would be a high cost to doing so and the nuclear deterrent is deliver via SSBNs but surely having the ability to strike anywhere in the world rapidly is a notable gap in our capability that would perhaps have diplomatic value and offer a strong conventional deterrent as well as being much easier to quickly deploy than a Tomahawk armed SSN or an aircraft carrier full of F35s.
The Vulcan did not have the Global reach you think it did.
On its trip to the Falklands, it completed in-flight refueling from Victor Tankers around 18 times. and I believe it also refueled at Diego Garcia.
The UK makes the wings and fuel delivery system for the airbus, but large bomber aircraft would need a complete manufacturing industry. The last time the UK made a large aircraft was the De Havilland Comet which was scrapped after 3 fatal crashes that killed all on board due to metal fatigue and the widows being square.
 
The Vulcan did not have the Global reach you think it did.
On its trip to the Falklands, it completed in-flight refueling from Victor Tankers around 18 times. and I believe it also refueled at Diego Garcia.
The UK makes the wings and fuel delivery system for the airbus, but large bomber aircraft would need a complete manufacturing industry. The last time the UK made a large aircraft was the De Havilland Comet which was scrapped after 3 fatal crashes that killed all on board due to metal fatigue and the widows being square.

Comet Mk4 fixed that. 100+ built. Nimrod derived from it.

VC10 much later. 50+ built.

Bae 146/Avro RJ. Much later still, 4-jet.

300+ built.
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
The Vulcan did not have the Global reach you think it did.
On its trip to the Falklands, it completed in-flight refueling from Victor Tankers around 18 times. and I believe it also refueled at Diego Garcia.
The UK makes the wings and fuel delivery system for the airbus, but large bomber aircraft would need a complete manufacturing industry. The last time the UK made a large aircraft was the De Havilland Comet which was scrapped after 3 fatal crashes that killed all on board due to metal fatigue and the widows being square.
Where to start with this one, the stupidity is great.
 
We already have 4 very effective strategic bombers and they are not RAF.
 

Latest Threads

Top